- From: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:52:45 +0200
Hi Daniel. You've obviously had these issues on your mind a long time. What is the benefit of the @start attribute on the ending tag? Shouldn't the @end attribute be sufficient. I fear that if you let HTML authors loose with something like this they'll end up with mis- matching pairs, and while still able to create those (e.g. two start tags ending at the same ID; or pointing to non-extant IDs) the surface area for error is greater if the end tag has to be the inverse of the start tag too. ? Nicholas Shanks. On 2 Apr 2008, at 4:05 pm, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> I like the paired-elements proposal, much better than my earlier >> ideas of being able to wrap <li></li> in idm. It gives you all the >> power of idm while retaining a well-formed dom tree. However, it's >> not ideal. The stuff in the range is no longer targetable with >> CSS, frex. We could poke at CSS3 to have a new pseudo-element set >> for idm, but meh. How do implementors feel about this? > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0190.html > > </Daniel> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2427 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080402/d2e73b83/attachment.bin>
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 07:52:45 UTC